The Nature of the Universe, Time Travel and More...

[Will The Serious]

I'm not sure why the observation of high frequency agitation leading to a slowing of radioactive decay is evidence of an affect on space-time. Why not, though. I'm sure one can argue, and even find a formula that demonstrates all change imposes an affect on space-time.

However, could there not be a more mechanical reason? Maybe hyper-sonic vibrations expand the valence fields of atomic structures, effectively recapturing sub-atomic particles that might otherwise escape their nucleus binding naturally over time.

Who needs a sword to cut into other realities, if you can carry a tune?

Orpheus was said to even move (emotionally) the stones (make them weep) with his music. I think that if there is any real example of "magic" in the universe, it's music. Music affects/moves people in ways that are causally inexplicable, but completely understandable.

Beauty is impossible to quantify, but undeniable in its power.

-Will

 

[publiusr]

If ultrasonics really does allow for reactions that are normally disallowed—it might allow for more widespread transmutation…say, transmuting a carbon disulfide liquid into silicon dioxide as it leaves a nozzle—turning tear gas into sand.

Lots of nasty sulfur out there to be dealt with.

Reactors turn mercury into gold—that bombardment is associated with some level of vibration…field effect, etc.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Voyager 1 thrusters reactivated to prevent build up in fuel lines.

NASA’s Voyager 1 Revives Backup Thrusters Before Command Pause - NASA Science https://share.google/KxVVnzLvZLyCqpoPg

 

[Will The Serious]

A very Star Trek fix, I think.

-Will

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

I think it's pretty cool, and they are upgrading their Earth based antenna to keep in contact with the probe which amazingly is still working out there. How much longer though is anyone's guess. I would have thought its power supplies would have long since drained.

2036 according to a bit in this article but t hat's only a suggestion for its final transmission

When will we get the final message from NASA's Voyager spacecraft?

They've traveled farther than any other human spacecraft. And they're carrying messages.

mashable.com

 

[publiusr]

Let me run this past you gentlemen since I don’t trust AI.

The New Horizons probe is healthier than the Voyagers.

Now, even with new telescopes coming on-line, I doubt the NH guys are going to find any more Kuiper objects ahead.

The heliophysics guys wanted that probe, but Stern was loathe to hand it over quickly.

SOHO has seen all kinds of comets slung outwards by the Sun.

I think it might be easier to search for new targets from behind.

If the Sun flings out a comet that managed to hold together—along a trajectory pointing towards New Horizons—the probe should have ample time to angle in for one last rendezvous.

Then hand it over to the solar dynamics guys here or in ESA so it could survive budget cuts.

 

[Will The Serious]

I've been thinking lately about time as the fourth dimension.

If One considers a system of dimensions, such as cartesian coordinates, as accurately representive of the foundation of our multidimensional universe, time as the fourth dimension implies stasis and time travel could not exist.

What I'm saying is that to consider time as the fourth dimension is to place time, as a dimension, in exactly the same relationship to the other three dimensions, just as axis X is to axis Y and Z. That would mean, to actually exist, an object has to be positioned somewhere along the X axis. Every object in the universe would occupy a place somewhere along the X axis. Likewise, that object along the X axis also exists somewhere along the Y axis and the Z axis. Even a single dimensionless point would be at some intersection of all three axis. This would have to be true, also, for the T axis.

How to visualize this four dimensional system. Now it is easy enough to picture our very familiar three dimensions. If we limit our imagination to a cube with an internal grid with three axis, the fourth axis would look like that same cube in the same 3D location ad infinitum. Each member of the infinite set of 3D spaces would be a unique point along the T axis.

A dimensionless point that only occupied one location along each axis would only appear within one of those infinite cubes, as each cube represents a unique point in space-time. An object that occupied a range of time, just as any object that had dimensions in the traditional sense, would appear within a series of those cubes. It could be like a tall, skinny object, for example, having limited or narrow range on the X and Y axis, but stretching up, multiple times as far, along the Z axis. Except, here the object would appear, from an outside observer, like it extruded it's 3D form through a range of the T axis, seconds, minutes, days, years, millennia,...

In the end, the only conclusion I can see is that a unique 3-dimensional universe exists for every point along the T axis (infinite), and those universes are each unchanging and unique to each of those points. There would be no movement, as that would be evidence of a 5th dimension, which again, includes the concept of stasis within all five dimensions. Thus, it follows as well, there would be no possibility of time travel, since each universe along the T axis exists at a concurrent space-time as every other point.

For time travel to work, an object must not only be able to move along the T axis, but to occupy a point along the other three axis that that object didn't occupy before it existed originally along the T axis. It could only be perception that could travel along the T axis. Any actual movement would pull the T axis out of the multidimensional system to make it a separate attribute from space-time.

-Will

 

[Toril Toran]

I have given time travel a little thought.

IF time travel were to exist, then all points in time (past, present, future) would have to co-exist all at the same time (which I believe they do).

The problem, as far as I am concerned, are coordinates. You would have to know the exact moment you wanted to travel back to in time (T), and the exact coordinates you wanted to travel to in space (X,Y,Z).

In order to travel in time accurately you would have to know the exact moment you wanted to travel to down to the second. I will explain this later.
While you are travelling during the time that the Gregorian Calendar is used, you could simply say I want to go back to (date) which would be the current date minus the number the days you wanted to travel backward in time.
However, if you were to go back beyond when the Gregorian calendar was used, things get a bit spotty, since before then calendar years were not constant.
The only way, as far as I can deduce, would be to go back to the beginning of time, and count forward in seconds. This is a paradox because we cannot know exactly when time began.(?)
Even if we could count time in seconds from the beginning, spatial coordinates becomes a problem.
Since everything is moving in space (stars, planets, galaxies) landing on the exact spot on earth becomes like trying to throw a dart at a dartboard from a thousand yards.

As to travelling accurately in time and space (especially time) you would want to be extremely accurate in your coordinates. Not only could you re-appear in the space where something else exists ( that would be very bad), but you could also re-appear where you had already been in space and time (also very bad), or you could accidentally cause some form of temporal anomaly, or paradox (very extremely bad).
As far as I can see, you would need the coordinates to represent your exact position in the galaxy, your exact position on the earth, and your exact coordinates in time.
The only way to travel in time accurately would be to start from the beginning and catalogue all the major (and perhaps minor) events

 

[Will The Serious]

However, if you were to go back beyond when the Gregorian calendar was used, things get a bit spotty, since before then calendar years were not constant.
The only way, as far as I can deduce, would be to go back to the beginning of time, and count forward in seconds. This is a paradox because we cannot know exactly when time began.(?)
Even if we could count time in seconds from the beginning, spatial coordinates becomes a problem.

Why not take a more relative approach? Specify distance from current location. No need to know anything about the origins of the Universe. Treat time just like another coordinate. "Time machine, send me back from where I am now to -73912.1323, 52.5983, 1251.4978, -2784^4E" (km,km,km,seconds). However, if axis T were exactly the same as axis X, Y, & Z, relative to each other, some understood common unit could be established for all 4 of them. That simply can be an agreed upon convention. Maybe a second's progression in time is the same as a meter's progression in space. Call the unit an ssu (Standard Space-time Unit).

To avoid traveling to a spot that already had a solid object occupying the position, the time machine would need to first be able to look ahead and interpret its findings, or have an accurate "map" of all possible points you could travel to.

-Will

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

To avoid traveling to a spot that already had a solid object occupying the position, the time machine would need to first be able to look ahead and interpret its findings, or have an accurate "map" of all possible points you could travel to.

Temporal Sensors?

Some method to peer through Time & Space to make sure that the location you want to portal to, within Time & Space, wouldn't be occupied by a solid object or Spatial Phenomena?

 

[Toril Toran]

Why not take a more relative approach? Specify distance from current location. No need to know anything about the origins of the Universe. Treat time just like another coordinate. "Time machine, send me back from where I am now to -73912.1323, 52.5983, 1251.4978, -2784^4E" (km,km,km,seconds). However, if axis T were exactly the same as axis X, Y, & Z, relative to each other, some understood common unit could be established for all 4 of them. That simply can be an agreed upon convention. Maybe a second's progression in time is the same as a meter's progression in space. Call the unit an ssu (Standard Space-time Unit).

To avoid traveling to a spot that already had a solid object occupying the position, the time machine would need to first be able to look ahead and interpret its findings, or have an accurate "map" of all possible points you could travel to.

-Will

This approach is haphazard at best. You could re-appear anywhere in space and time.
If you traveled back in time for a week, and wanted to return, would you remember to make the proper adjustments in time? Space?
Cataloging time would be the only accurate way to travel in time. This way you could travel accurately anywhere in time and space.

Did I mention you also may want your time travel machine to be self-contained, complete with walls, atmosphere, heat, etc ( in case of a mis-calculation).
Perhaps with some sort of cloaking device that can change its’ appearance, like say…a police box?

 

[Owain Taggart]

I think Back to the Future had it half right, but I think its biggest issue is that I don't think the flux capacitor could calculate for the other axises. I would probably call all that a Temporal Address just for the sake of it being easier to refer to. It could only travel forward and back through time through a linear plane. Where it goes wrong, I think, is in how mobile the DeLorean is at all times, which invites chaos, and any form of where it will end up precisely, which is how we got to the DeLorean ending up in the farmer's barn in the first movie.

 

[Will The Serious]

This approach is haphazard at best. You could re-appear anywhere in space and time.

On the contrary, taking an approach that was more akin to counting forward and backward along a number line is about as accurate as you can get. If you can know an absolute point and time in the universe, you can more accurately know where points on your planet's surface were a hundred years ago, as well as where your planet was in the galactic orbit, and where the galaxy was in its flight out from its point of origin, even if you don't know exactly where that origin was. You have a path and speed, as well as the basic mechanics to predict future points. The same knowledge should give you your relative past positions to your current location in time and space.

Yes, it would be miraculous to pin it down over a few hundred years to that accuracy, but far more reasonable than to know the universal point of origin in space-time, and your exact relationship to it. I am assuming billions of years and kilometers from your zero point. The error for those distances in time and space would be far far greater that simply predicting where your landing spot was a couple thousand years earlier, or will be in a couple thousand years.

 -Will

 

[Toril Toran]

Thus a self-contained craft of some kind…